Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Philips Electronics, a Netherlands-based company, has come up with a device designed to protect day traders from emotionally based trading decisions. The Rationalizer measures your galvanic skin response and lets you know when you are under stress. An online trader can then take a "time-out, wind down and re-consider their actions," according to the company. This may have come too late for us, but at least future generations won't have to live through the horror of angry day trading.

I'm wondering how day trading, as an activity, benefits society. Sure, if done right, it can benefit the individual, but what use is it to the average person? It seems to promote the tragedy of the privates. That is, privately owned resources will be used unsustainably and depleted because the owner can simply take the profits and reinvest them into rapidly depleting some other resource. Communally managed resources will be used sustainably because no one person can abscond with the profits and reinvest them in some other resource depletion scheme. Day trading seems the perfect example of this. Day traders have no connection with the companies they trade in, no commitment to them, no stake in them at all.

With other industries, one can easily see how they benefit society, yet day trading seems to provide no benefit. Maybe someone who understands the function of day trading better than I do can explain what purpose it serves besides making a few individuals rich at the expense of everyone else. Day trading seems more like gambling than responsible ownership. Doesn't it create an unacceptable moral hazard?

You can think of it as short term investing. Sure, an investor produces nothing and earns money seemingly from nothing, but you're ignoring the fact that he's supplying the investee with the ability to produce a product/start a business, etc.

Day trading's the same on a micro scale. Any consential transaction benefits all parties. So in the end it's positive.

You can think of it as short term investing. Sure, an investor produces nothing and earns money seemingly from nothing, but you're ignoring the fact that he's supplying the investee with the ability to produce a product/start a business, etc.

Day trading's the same on a micro scale. Any consential transaction benefits all parties. So in the end it's positive.

It's not the same though. Day trading almost exclusively consists of stocks that have already provided any benefit they will ever provide to the people who needed the investment -- indeed, after the point of IPO, stocks are a financial liability for a company.

Unlike buying stock in an IPO, you are not providing investment funds to anybody-- indeed, you're trying to get funds from other investors by betting on the right time to buy/sell. They're doing the same thing to you... the net result is that one o

"But financially, this is of no benefit to society, or the companies whose stock you're trading."

Wrong on both counts. The existence of day traders ensures a steady volume of trades for many stocks that would be lightly traded otherwise. This means longer-term investors can get into or out of a position without excessive volatility. Although day trading can cause some minor volatility on its own, the effect is more of a smoothing action, keeping the stock price roughly aligned with investors' analysis o

Actually, let me add a bit more: if a large corporation dumped a lot of stock, then the price would drop as the market was flooded. Now... there's no guarantee that will happen, because of day traders -- thus keeping the price artificially inflated.

Dividends, which is what you are talking about, have not been paid in years.

Dividends are alive and well where I live. I haven't looked at the US market in a while but I thought it was only the tech stocks that weren't paying dividends.

Without dividends, all that is of interest to investors is the stock price increasing, and for that to happen, the company must report increases and logarithmic growth year after year, which is unsustainable in the long or even medium term.

I see. You think capitalism is supposed to reward hard work. Hence all those millionaire construction workers and gardeners.

What I'm saying is that your premise is flawed. Capitalism is not supposed to reward "hard work". It's supposed to reward success, and if that seems nonsensical it's because your point and implied question are stupid - Capitalism isn't "supposed" to do anything but allow individual actors the ability to engage in consensual business.

Day trading seems more like gambling than responsible ownership. Doesn't it create an unacceptable moral hazard?

I don't think you understand what a moral hazard is. Moral hazard refers to the concept that people who are isolated from risk (i.e: mega-corps that get bailed out when they fuck up) won't behave as rationally as those that are fully exposed to said risk. I don't recall many (any?) day traders getting bailed out during our recent round of corporate welfare.

I think I do understand what a moral hazard is. Day traders are isolated from the risks they create, not because of any bail out, but because they can simply reinvest their money into something else after ruining a company. They have no incentive to look after the long term welfare of the companies they invest in. That is a moral hazard. They can create risk for the companies they invest in, while being isolated from that risk.

They risk losing their own money, but they create a larger risk to society that they are isolated from. They are basically absentee landlords. They have no vested interest in keeping any company functional. If they can make a profit by killing a company, what's to stop them from doing so?

They risk losing their own money, but they create a larger risk to society that they are isolated from. They are basically absentee landlords. They have no vested interest in keeping any company functional. If they can make a profit by killing a company, what's to stop them from doing so?

How does any investor (whether day-trader or long term investor) "kill" a company? There isn't a one to one relationship between the stock price and the health of the company. It could be argued that the stock price is meaningless for day to day operations, unless the company needs to raise capital by issuing more stock.

Stock trading is meaningless for day to day operations of a company? So this economic downturn we are in had nothing to do with trading? Companies have no trouble getting enough capital to engage in day to day operations? No layoffs?

Then what is trading for? Is it just a form of gambling?

One cost of day trading is the opportunity cost, all the effort going into something that is, if you are correct, totally useless, could be better spent doing something useful. Being useful certainly isn't required. But bei

Actually yes, it mostly is, unless (as I said) that company is seeking to raise more capital. The stock price has no direct bearing on how much cash the company has in it's bank accounts. It has no direct bearing on whether or not their products will succeed in the marketplace. It has no direct bearing on whether or not a tornado will level their factory.

Being useful certainly isn't required. But being useless shouldn't be respected, should it?

Please explain to me why day traders are "useless". As I said in another post, if nothing else they provide needed liquidity in the marketplace.

How many people can't retire now, because the value of their 401k has dropped?

That's their own damn fault for having so much of their nest egg in volatile investments so close to retirement. For every story you can came up with of someone who can't retire I can counter with a story of someone in his 20s, 30s or 40s who is making a killing. I'm currently up 65% on the investments that I made as the market was tanking. My 403(b) is still down, but why would I care about that? I'm not going to retire for 40 years.

Are you saying day trading can not affect the value of people's 401k?

Day traders and short sellers can't drive down the price of a healthy company over the medium to long term. In the short term they can have an affect but nobody (who is sane) is holding stock investments in a 401(k) for the "short" term, are they?

It sounds as though you are claiming that all this hair trigger, instant trading has no effect outside of the parties involved, no externalities that affect individuals retirement or other accounts, or even entire economies

No, I've claimed nothing of the sort. I've only claimed that day traders can't "kill" an otherwise healthy company. I'm still waiting for you to produce some evidence to the contrary. Am I waiting in vain?

And yet, we've all seen lots of articles regarding automated day trading, and how it does exactly that.

Automated trading does some stupid shit. I recall the price of an airline being driven down to almost nothing [newser.com] over automated trading when a false report of their bankruptcy was published. I don't think it happened that long ago either. Would it surprise you to learn that even though the airline's stock dropped 99.92% that they remained in business? This would seem to run counter to your notion that traders can "kill" an otherwise healthy company.

One example where they were accused of it is HBOS plc, Europe's largest mortgage bank. Rumours started circulating that it was running out of money, and was a week away from bankruptcy, so they were accused of bringing down a good solid company.

It turns out that the rumours were wrong only in that it was actually three hours away from bankruptcy as a result of its investments in toxic mortgage assets.

Um, I didn't get bailed out recently either, but that doesn't mean I'm suddenly contributing a lot to society...

Where did this notion that everybody needs to contribute "a lot" to society come from? And why do you assume that day traders aren't contributing? If nothing else they provide liquidity in the marketplace. What do you purpose doing about them anyway? Passing a regulation that says you have to hold a stock for X number of days? At what point does someone who holds onto a stock start "contributing" to society in your mind?

No serious. Part of the reason we're in such a mess is because of over-efficient business. Business doesn't keep items in stock, they don't have spare capacity, everything is optimized so that every penny is squeezed from the business as long as everything runs as normal. The slightest hiccup will make the whole house of cards come tumbling down.

Contrast this with nature. Overefficient predators will die out (as they deplete their source of food), and everything is set up to be a

In theory, it smooths out random changes to the price, reducing the risk of any investment that people make (because a stock that is moving steadily up is less risky then a stock that is going up in crazy waves of ups and downs), which, in turn, allows for companies to borrow money easier.

I think day traders probably have little power over what the industry is doing, since they don't stay investors long enough to go to board meetings or anything. What's more important are the people who buy into a company, pressure it into insane business practices for short term profits (or simply go along with short-term profit motivated plans), then cut and run and get away with it because they have no liability when the company goes bankrupt.

For instance, a case [nytimes.com] reported by the NYTimes in which a firm that does something useful is essentially looted by a private equity firm, who bought up the company's stock on debt, and then promptly assigned the debt that they used to buy up the company to the company they just bought.

Private equity firms get $750 million, Simmons Bedding Company gets bankruptcy. It makes the stuff Michael Milkin was pulling in the 1980's seem positively nice and friendly by comparison.

Sure it is. Day trading transfers money from idiots to those who are smarter and wiser. Every study I have seen says that day traders generally lose money over the long term.
My understanding of the markets is that there are times when day trading benefits society by rapidly moving resources from an inappropriate allocation to a more appropriate allocation. If day traders did not exist, all of the profit to be had from such activity would end of in the hands of a much smaller group of people. As it is, thi

I would say that yes day trading is a good thing, because wealth in the hands of day traders tends to flow out of their hands and into the rest of the economy. Once the day trader is broke, the problem is solved. Of course a few very lucky day traders will exist and these will brag about how much money they made and attract many others to the day trading industry. These others wouldn't have contributed any insight into the market had they not become day traders anyway. It's worth having a few wealthy da

Professional traders (which i hope to be one day) are the lubrication of the gears of finance. They give companies the money to grow. The difference between traders and Joe Bob who bought a stock is financial education. If Joe knew what a pro knew, he'd do it too. Most people do not have the time or interest to seek a financial education. Which is terrible for them and the economy in general. ERISA and the baby boomers are going to fuck up the US economy in about 6 years or so*. i hope that won't happ

The tuna in the example are day traders who lose money. They knew the risks when they bought stocks (unless they were lied to by one of those "OMG DAYTRADERS ARE ALL RICH" books, but that's a different problem).

when the tuna is a citizen of a democracy where it can vote to outlaw sharks?

This is democracy we're talking about, so presumable the crappy day traders could put a cap on the IQ of people doing trading, and also forcibly retire them after 5 years (thus outlawing "the sharks"). I don't think it would have the happy ending you're hoping for though.

Well, the answer to my question seems to be, 'day traders provide market liquidity.' And yet, there were no day traders before the mid '70s. How did the market provide liquidity before then?

I'm not the customer of the pork rendering facility in the next county, and yet I feel no qualms about pressuring them not to dump putrid pork grease into the river. You see, there are these things called 'externalities.' Just because I am not a party to a transaction does not mean I don't have to pay some of the cost of

Yes. Lets list the communally managed resources: roads, fire departments, police departments, water, sewers, the national parks, the radio spectrum, air... All better managed by governments than private industry. Look what happened in Central and South America when they tried to privatize water.

My point is that day traders are the ultimate absentee landlords. A regular investor has a stake in the continued success of a company. A day trader doesn't. People making money off of things whose well being they have no stake in is the root of the Tragedy of the Commons, and pretty much the definition of a financial moral hazard.

Given the nature of the stock market, you've got to wonder whether calm "rational" decision making is any better than stressed "emotional" decision making. Doesn't a monkey with a dart board outperform most stock analysts?

Not only that, but the first time a trader can't make a trade because the device tells them to chill out, that sucker is flying through a window.

First thing I thought of as well. When money is on the line, they'll find some way around the device. The thing to keep in mind here is that keeping a trader from making trades is the absolutely worst thing this device can do. And it doesn't protect from the worst mistakes: fat finger trades (where the trader makes some grossly expensive typo, though I suppose excessive stress makes this sort of error more likely, it can happen at any time) and double down trading (where the trader is certain they're right and keeps betting the wrong way, "The market can remain wrong longer than you can remain solvent.").

My wife and I were watching an episode of House recently where a billionaire dumped his stock in his company because he thought the karma would save his kid's life. I don't think any device would make a man with that level of conviction change his mind, though I imagine it might help prevent the last-minute-auction syndrome you tend to see on Ebay where a bidder ups a bid past the Buy-it-now price of the same item from another seller. It's irrational, but it happens all the time.

...No day trader will buy it - stress is part of the job.But imagine if they did...

"I'M SORRY, YOU CANNOT TRADE RIGHT NOW - YOU APPEAR TOO STRESSED TO MAKE REASONABLE DECISIONS.""But the market is crashing! I can make a killing if I can just change my trading positions!""I'M SORRY YOU CANNOT just change my trading positions! BUT YOU APPEAR TOO STRESSED TO MAKE REASONABLE DECISIONS.""@$%^!@*!!"

I can just imagine if this is used for drivers. You get stressed by the heavy traffic, or the twit who blocks you when you try to merge, and the car suddenly pulls itself off the road and won't start again until you calm down.

Someone came up with this idea several years ago. I seem to remember this being a British idea, but my memory may be incorrect.

Without some sort of context as to why I might be having a stressed galvanic response and what constitutes a valid reaction to the stressor, the system could easily turn into something counterproductive.

Maybe I'm stressed because I gotta take a leak. Maybe the crazy driver is behind me and I've accidentally done something to set him off (not noticed him catching up with me when he

Dunno why they'd have to invent something to do this: it's been known for almost 200 years. Build a Wheatstone Bridge [wikipedia.org] with your body as one of the four legs of the bridge, and measure across the middle. I was building these when I was 10. Add a transistor to drive a meter and you have most of a Scientologist's E-meter. Use this as the input to an analog input channel of an Arduino and interface it via RS232 or USB to your computer and you can easily write something to automatically log you out of e-trade or whatever. I'm not really sure where the innovation is here, although Philips usually comes up with great ideas. I guess you could use a sparkfun xbee unit to make it wireless, since anything that contains the word "wireless" seems to be patentable these days, but that just makes me even more irritated.

You'll note I didn't recommend saving money by buying them on Ebay, because apparently Ebay refuses to allow them to be listed. I wonder if Google Marketplace has any? Not going to search from work but I am curious, now.

Don't like replying to my own post, but I'm still irritated and have more to rant about. A simple wheatstone bridge isn't of much use because it's an absolute measurement, and the system, if calibrated for testing people in Italy, where they're more likely to be sweaty, hot, and irritable, would have a lot of issues testing people in the Antarctic, where nobody's sweaty and probably people are generally somewhat calmer. There is an adjustment knob, traditionally, of a 1M or thereabouts pot on one of the o

Maybe someone can help me understand this differently, but I can't think of a more worthless contribution to society than a day trader. Are they contributing anything whatsoever to society by their actions? Just shifting money back and forth trying to make a profit? Hell someone playing WoW all day is less worthless. Can someone tell me what purpose they serve? How about giving the money to the people that actually create things or provide services?

Actually, while they are not producing any goods in the traditional sense, they increase the liquidy of the market. The more more liquid it is the better is is for pretty much anyone, or so economists say. So they do produce a useful service of sorts.

But yeah, I see your point, they do seem like pointless generally parasites that just try to make money off the inherent noise in the system. Personally, I think that it sounds like a really risky form of investing with a fairly low payout for the amount of

Actually, only some economists say that increased liquidity is an absolute gain. And even then, economists deal more in theories than in reality.

One could make a very convincing case that the Asian Financial Crisis of the late '90s was greatly exacerbated by excessive liquidity in the markets, which strengthened the self-sustaining collapse in currency values. Countries handled it better when they established regulations preventing investors from pulling capital out of their economies, halting the crash.

Thanks for the informative answers, that makes a little more sense to me now. It's amazing our economic system works at all. Of course, it also can fail spectacularly as we've all seen. I've never understood the people that think a bunch of unregulated greedy jackasses all trying to make a buck will somehow magically make a fair and sustainable society and economy.

"Users wear a device called the EmoBracelet that senses stress and makes an accompanying lighted bowl, or EmoBowl, change color and flicker from yellow to red as emotions become more intense."
Something makes me think this is being targetted towards a younger market.

I'm a trader by profession (although not a day trader) and making emotional decisions is about the worst thing you can do. The only worse thing is NOT making a call because you happen to be excited.

It's a learned behaviour, but a trader needs to be able to abstract away from the trade. You almost need to pretend that somebody else is doing the trade and you're just watching. I think any trader who stays in the job learns this skill eventually. The first time I traded a few million dollars of risk, I was down to few last red cells in my adrenaline stream. If I kept going that way, I'd be either an unemployed or an alcoholic (or most likely both). Instead I learned not to take it too personally. Now a large trade barely increases my pulse.

I don't think a device can replace this behaviour. In a fast market my heart may be way up due to working on several things at once and trying to keep up with the information. I still need to make trades, I just need to stay rational. A glorified heart rate monitor won't help with this.

I was thinking something similar (I do currency/futures trading with my own money, but am by no means a professional); I know when I'm emotional, and I know I shouldn't trade when emotional, I don't need a machine to tell me it's a bad plan.

So maybe traders would be more rational if they had zero financial interest in the success of their trades, right? I mean if the decisions you make don't affect you more than the decisions you make when playing Windows' mine sweeper then you should stay cool headed, right? And surely as a result their performance would increase?

I mean, having an interest in those things, that's as if you rewarded a doctor or a firefighter $10,000 for saving a life. That's easy to see why it's not a good idea.

Sell! Fucking idiot machine. I'm not stressed, I just have a fucking cold. Oh look the stock is tanking. I was right. Better get out quick. Sell! What do you mean I'm stressed?! I'm not fucking stressed. It's time to get out. Sell! Sell! Sell! Fuck now it's REALLY tanking. Okay now I'm getting stressed for real. Stock is hitting the floor and this is going to wipe me out. Sell now you fucking piece of shit machine! Sell!!!!!! Ah fuck, I'm about to lose my shirt here! Sell!!!!! Anyone want to buy a fucking u

Stress responses exist because they were adaptive in the context in which they evolved. For the set "situations faced by certain group-dwelling hominids of the African savanna 10,000-100,000 years ago" that means that they are just about perfect. That doesn't provide any particular assurance for more contemporary concerns.